P. v. Molson CA4/3
Judy Hopper Molson appeals from the trial court’s order awarding restitution to Leo Innerbichler, the victim of Molson’s elder abuse. Molson argues the following: the court abused its discretion in ordering restitution; the court erred by admitting expert testimony; and the court erred by awarding attorney fees. The Attorney General asserts we must modify the order to reflect the total amount of restitution; Molson disagrees.
As we explain below, although we conclude the trial court properly admitted expert testimony, we agree with Molson there was no “factual nexus” between Molson’s conduct and the restitution award, and consequently the court’s attorney fees award must also be reversed. Because we reverse the restitution award and fees award, we decline the Attorney General’s request to modify the abstract of judgment. We reverse the order and remand the matter.
Comments on P. v. Molson CA4/3